It's amazing how there's so much antagonism towards the questions posed by this particular OP.
Is this the audio equivalent of Stockholm Syndrome?
Why should we rush to the defense of designers and manufacturers when it's patently clear that they are knowingly selling substandard products?
Perhaps we would do well to remember that the history of audio is littered with poor sub-standard loudspeakers that would have cost consumers a pretty penny.
So much garbage that the owners inevitably soon feel compelled to look for something better. We know designers use various tricks, such as deliberately elevated treble or even boosted mid-bass, to enable their speakers to initially stand out and sound impressive in demonstrations.
Not exactly honest is it?
Do we really want them to prosper at the expense of decent designers who offer better quality products which might not appear as impressive at first listen?
So what's wrong with asking them to supply data to show us what they have done?
When it comes to loudspeakers, just how many 'keepers' are there? The ones that provide years of satisfaction and later go on to become collectors items?
BBC LS3/5s, Quad 57s/63s for example.
Let's face it, there's not too many, are there.
Maybe posters like kenjit (albeit not in his idiosyncratic style) can help to break the unpleasant hegemony of the dealers and reviewers all acting as the advertising wing of the manufacturing industry by asking such pertinent questions.
Manufacturer v consumer is always an uneasy relationship because of the cut throat competition involved. We, the consumers, need to keep them honest otherwise they will take us for a ride the way the auto industry tries to.
They're now getting fully behind electric cars after decades of opposition and suppression (ditto hydrogen tech).
Why now?
We will only get better loudspeakers if that's what we really want and ask for.
They don't care, they're in the selling business happy to forever sell us any old rubbish.